Tuesday, May 19, 2009

"Republicans can reach a broader base by recasting gay marriage as an issue that could dent pocketbooks as small businesses spend more on health care and other benefits, GOP Chairman Michael Steele said Saturday.Steele said that was just an example of how the party can retool its message to appeal to young voters and minorities without sacrificing core conservative principles. Steele said he used the argument weeks ago while chatting on a flight with a college student who described herself as fiscally conservative but socially liberal on issues like gay marriage.

`Now all of a sudden I've got someone who wasn't a spouse before, that I had no responsibility for, who is now getting claimed as a spouse that I now have financial responsibility for," Steele told Republicans at the state convention in traditionally conservative Georgia. "So how do I pay for that? Who pays for that? You just cost me money.´"

Regardless of one´s position in the gay marriage debate, is this the type of reasoning that should decide this issue? The same logic can be applied to the advocacy of almost any prejudice or bigotry. For example, does Michael Steele want to deny equal pay for women? Is the Republican Party opposed to paying women the same wages and salaries as men for doing the same job because it will be more costly to businesses? Would the GOP advocate a law that requires businesses to pay women less than men? It would save small businesses money, would it not?

Or how about other discriminations, such as on the basis of race or religion? Does the Republican Party advocate maintaining spousal benefits for white Protestants, but abolishing them for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims? Those actions would save small businesses money. Yet, that does not make it the right thing to do.

Or perhaps Michael Steele wants Republicans to advocate the general abolition of marriage. Not providing spousal benefits for anyone would reduce business expenses, right?

You Want the Truth?

Comments

I welcome comments. Please keep them civil, short and to the point. Obscene, profane, abusive and off topic comments will be deleted. Repeat offenders will be blocked. Thanks for taking part — and abiding by these simple rules.

The following information is provided to help you understand the biases that may be inherent in this blog.My primary U.S. economic policy concern is the fiscal irresponsibility of government.The Baby Boom generation, which I am part of, has spent the past 30 years accumulating massive public debt that will be passed to our children, grandchildren, and subsequent generations.I am not opposed to the reduction or elimination of any government spending program.Yet, politicians tend to call for reduced spending in general terms and fail to publicly declare specific cuts they would make.The primary cause of the massive U.S. public debt is revenue reductions (in the form of tax cuts) without similar decreases in government spending.

I am willing to consider the expansion and addition of government programs as well.I do not mind how much or little the government provides to society as long as it is paid for.I am willing to pay higher taxes for services deemed worthy, whether they be national defense, homeland security, or income assistance to those less fortunate than I.And I am certainly willing to pay less in taxes or to deposit any government check I receive.My generation, the Baby Boomers, has been very good at cutting taxes and increasing the size of government, regardless of which political party is in power.This is a prescription for financial chaos that remains a horrible legacy for future generations.

About Me

I am a professor of economics at Jacksonville University, where I teach courses in introductory economics, comparative economic development, and globalization. I use this blog to keep in touch with my current and former students. Teachers and students at other schools, as well as others interested in economic issues, are welcome to use this resource.